Whoa, whoa, whoa, it's only dishonest to cherry pick start point, but not end point?:)
Really?:)
No, not really. You made it up. That's not what I said. Using all data up to the present is not cherry picking.
And you should know that when you link to a wattsupwiththat article, you are revealing that you are either dishonest or a fool. It's an anti-science propaganda site.
That said, it's YOUR presentation here that is dishonest. You say: "Look, NOAA 2008 specified a falsification criteria" But the quote is: "The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate."
Note the 95% confidence level. There's no absolute there, and your presentation of at as a falsification statement, and that "you just need to find it *once*." is either ignorant or a lie.
It's not hard to hit a 1 in 20 chance, when you are cherry picking data.
The issue is that listening to the climate change doomsayers sounds a whole like listening to religious people.
You perhaps want to think more critically than that. The difference between religious people and those who accept the climate science consensus, is that the latter have evidence. If there's any similarity of sound, then it's being committed. Being committed doesn't make one wrong any more than it makes one right. It's the evidence that does that.
Those who believe in mankind caused climate change don't seem to me to be much interested in a debate, they simply want everyone to accept their point of view without question.
You're not a scientist. Your debate might be a fun pastime for you, but it's irrelevant to the actual scientific debate, which has been going for decades. It's reached consensus, regardless of what you think.
I makes no difference whatsoever whether you accept the consensus or not. It is the the most informed scientific position there is, and it's the position that politicians should be, and increasingly are, acting on.
Ahh, but I disagree with you and you have not convinced me that you're correct. Maybe I'm wrong, but it is your job to convince me of that, not to tell me that I'm simply wrong. By speaking down to me, you lose me in the process, along with everyone else like me, and many of us have a lot of money and a lot of influence.
That's quite a big ego you have there. You grossly overestimate your importance. What you believe has no bearing on the science. I don't need to convince you any more than I need to convince you of evolution or that smoking is a carcinogen. We simply have to get to a stage where the politicians accept the science. And they are all coming to accept it.
I'm well aware that few people on Slashdot ever change their minds about anything. So it's pretty pointless to even have that as an objective. We simply play the game of debating, because we enjoy it.
we'll simply use force to crush you.
Ha ha! You're a cartoon character. Do you have any concept of how ridiculous you are?
The Earth is billions of years old, 30 years isn't even on the radar of the planet.
What's that got to do with the price of fish?
Look, there's a distinction between signal and noise. In recorded music, the signal is the note(s). The noise is hiss. The fact that there are millions of hours of recorded music makes no difference to the fact that the signal is in the notes, and not the hiss. You can filter the sound to minimise the hiss whilst retaining the notes. There is a minimum length of recorded sound that you need to be able to tell what the note is, as distinct from the hiss.
In Climatology, the signal is climate and the noise is weather. You can't filter less than about 30 years.
It makes no difference to this what the timespan of the earth is.
Go back 65 million years ago to the Dinos... Picking out any 30 year period back then is just silly, time scales for looking at the climate back then are much, much larger than 30 years, other than perhaps the specific 30 years after the asteroid impact that killed all the dinos.
At no point in my entire life have I ever said that climate is weather averaged over exactly 30 years. I said "The conventional period for climate is the average of at least 30 years weather." For sure when looking back a long way, they have to consider periods longer than 30 years.
Go ask a geologist if he/she thinks 30 years is significant to the planet Earth.
Which might be relevant if we were talking about geology. But we're talking about climate.
13 to 15 deaths due to inattentive drivers will not be stopped by having a rear view camera.
If you RTFA, you'd see that actually it's 210 deaths and 15,000 injuries per year from backup-accidents. They've already discounted that down to 13-15 lives and 1,125 injuries saved from the rule.
In other words they are saying that having mandatory cameras will prevent about 7% of reversing accidents. Which seems modest enough.
Yes, it was much better in the nineteenth century when government was less invasive in people's lives, and heroic private sector food manufacturers used to pad out food with poisons and excrement.
Just this weekend I nearly got into an accident when my new car's 'anti-skid' protection switched on unexpectedly.....
It switched on because you'd already started skidding. You'd lost it already. The anti-skid protection probably saved you from the actual accident you would have had otherwise.
Car manufacturer's compete on the base price of vehicles, then cash in by overpricing options. By making rear-view cameras a standard fitting it ensures you will be getting it at a competitive price.
So why would you do that? You car is already fitted with rear view mirrors. Do you neglect to look to either side when backing out because your focus is fixed on them?
No, I'm using Nate Silver as an example of a real statistician successfully using models for prediction in a way that you say is wrong.
And he didn't just predict an election. He predicted every state correctly at the last election, and 49 out of 50 states correctly at the previous election.
He's published a book about using modelling for prediction. You should read it. It even has a section on predicting global warming, and absolutely underlines the problems in doing that. But his criticisms come from knowledge of using modelling for prediction. Yours clearly don't.
It is also forever interesting that people are forever willing to move the goalposts for the number of years required for the weather to be climate as the weather refuses to cooperate with their prior conceptions of that the climate ought to be doing.
This is a lie. I've been discussing climate change for more than 20 years, and climate has always been weather over a large area averaged over at least 30 years.
Sadly, the climate scientists who wrote AR5 do not agree with you.
Sadly your interpretation of AR5 is not the same thing as AR5, let alone the scientists who wrote AR5.
Let me ask you a question. If we were looking at the predictions of 36 distinct density functional theory implementations in physics compared to measured spectroscopy results, would you average the 36 results and compare the mean as some sort of reliable predictor of the data, especially when some of the computations were run on PCs using matlab and represented only 20 hours of total compute time and others were run with enormous bases on huge clusters and represented 20,000 hours of compute time?
What Nate Silver would do is bias them for how well they have so far performed. At the beginning of such an exercise, you'd have to value them equally. Doing anything else would be bringing subjectivity into it.
Of course you have no better answer for that you'd do. But having seen you cherry pick data, I know what you would do. You'd bias towards the models that give you the result you want.
Something to think about while you ponder Bayesian statistics and the fact that accumulating data continuously falsifies theories or forces reconsideration of their priors -- it doesn't happen all at once after thirty years.
Gibberish. I never said anything about waiting 30 years. Each year always brings a new annual point on the climate chart. The latest one being the average of 1984-2014.
Bastards eh! Look how much harm the mandatory fitting of seat-belts and air bags has already done to you and your children. Will the government's viciousness never stop.
A backup camera will run you around $500-600 at a post-manufacturer upfitter.
Most of those costs is labour. Fitting an accessory to a car after manufacture takes lots of work. Fitting it during manufacture as a standard part takes little work.
Do you find yourself to be similarly distracted by rear view mirrors?
I don't know about you, but I find that rear view mirrors are a useful tool to look what's behind me. But I'm aware of what areas they don't cover, and physically look round to cover some of those areas. And I'm aware of those areas that aren't covered by either.
Why do you think rear view cameras are fundamentally different and negative when mirrors are incredibly useful and save lives?
The truth is, the alarmist nazis hate using 97-98 as a start point, but *love* it as an end point.
Everyone likes "the latest year we have data for" as an end point. So of course during 1999, 1998 will have been used as an end point. And it's status as an outlier will have been less obvious then.
For sure, climate scientists didn't continue using 1998 as an end point when further years data was available.
The dishonesty comes in selecting an outlier as a start point. Because for sure there is plenty of data that comes before 1998, and including it only makes the picture more informative, not less.
We're in a year when using 1998 as a start point almost sounds credible as it's a semi round 15 years ago. However deniers were also using it when it was 11, 12, 13, 14 years ago. For which there can be no defense from it being plain dishonesty.
Basically they say "We have no defensible reason to think that the average of all of the climate models in CMIP5 has the slightest actual meaning, and we have excellent reasons not to just take the numerical average of their individual mean predictions with equal weight and to prune out the failing models, but we're going present the numerical average of all of the models, including the ones that are overtly failing, anyway".
And that's a pretty accurate description of how Nate Silver accurately predicted 49 states in the 2008 general election and 50 states in the 2012 general election.
If it seems wrong to you, then that only means that you know less about using models to predict than Nate Silver and the AR5 team.
You are responding to the fact that cherry picking a period of weather and claiming it is dishonest, by selecting two more short periods of weather for charting?
Climate is 30 years of weather averaged. Although this is still a chart of weather, you can still see clearly that if you averaged over 30 years to get climate, then the trend would be up.
Lets list some more, because it's the same type of people that are denying AGW now, that denied all these in the past:
Smoking is carcinogenic. Secondary smoking is carcinogenic. Asbestos causes lung disease. Evolution. The hole in the ozone layer. That strictly controlling CFCs would remedy the hole in the ozone layer.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoa, whoa, whoa, it's only dishonest to cherry pick start point, but not end point? :)
Really? :)
No, not really. You made it up. That's not what I said. Using all data up to the present is not cherry picking.
And you should know that when you link to a wattsupwiththat article, you are revealing that you are either dishonest or a fool. It's an anti-science propaganda site.
That said, it's YOUR presentation here that is dishonest. You say: "Look, NOAA 2008 specified a falsification criteria" But the quote is: "The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate."
Note the 95% confidence level. There's no absolute there, and your presentation of at as a falsification statement, and that "you just need to find it *once*." is either ignorant or a lie.
It's not hard to hit a 1 in 20 chance, when you are cherry picking data.
Do you admit you've been falsified
No. Do you admit you're a liar or a fool?
The issue is that listening to the climate change doomsayers sounds a whole like listening to religious people.
You perhaps want to think more critically than that. The difference between religious people and those who accept the climate science consensus, is that the latter have evidence. If there's any similarity of sound, then it's being committed. Being committed doesn't make one wrong any more than it makes one right. It's the evidence that does that.
Those who believe in mankind caused climate change don't seem to me to be much interested in a debate, they simply want everyone to accept their point of view without question.
You're not a scientist. Your debate might be a fun pastime for you, but it's irrelevant to the actual scientific debate, which has been going for decades. It's reached consensus, regardless of what you think.
I makes no difference whatsoever whether you accept the consensus or not. It is the the most informed scientific position there is, and it's the position that politicians should be, and increasingly are, acting on.
Ahh, but I disagree with you and you have not convinced me that you're correct.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it is your job to convince me of that, not to tell me that I'm simply wrong.
By speaking down to me, you lose me in the process, along with everyone else like me, and many of us have a lot of money and a lot of influence.
That's quite a big ego you have there. You grossly overestimate your importance. What you believe has no bearing on the science. I don't need to convince you any more than I need to convince you of evolution or that smoking is a carcinogen. We simply have to get to a stage where the politicians accept the science. And they are all coming to accept it.
I'm well aware that few people on Slashdot ever change their minds about anything. So it's pretty pointless to even have that as an objective. We simply play the game of debating, because we enjoy it.
we'll simply use force to crush you.
Ha ha! You're a cartoon character. Do you have any concept of how ridiculous you are?
The Earth is billions of years old, 30 years isn't even on the radar of the planet.
What's that got to do with the price of fish?
Look, there's a distinction between signal and noise. In recorded music, the signal is the note(s). The noise is hiss. The fact that there are millions of hours of recorded music makes no difference to the fact that the signal is in the notes, and not the hiss. You can filter the sound to minimise the hiss whilst retaining the notes. There is a minimum length of recorded sound that you need to be able to tell what the note is, as distinct from the hiss.
In Climatology, the signal is climate and the noise is weather. You can't filter less than about 30 years.
It makes no difference to this what the timespan of the earth is.
Go back 65 million years ago to the Dinos... Picking out any 30 year period back then is just silly, time scales for looking at the climate back then are much, much larger than 30 years, other than perhaps the specific 30 years after the asteroid impact that killed all the dinos.
At no point in my entire life have I ever said that climate is weather averaged over exactly 30 years. I said "The conventional period for climate is the average of at least 30 years weather." For sure when looking back a long way, they have to consider periods longer than 30 years.
Go ask a geologist if he/she thinks 30 years is significant to the planet Earth.
Which might be relevant if we were talking about geology. But we're talking about climate.
But you aren't getting LESS traction, you're getting more.
There's no excuse for checking less when reversing. All rearward views have blind spots. And you shouldn't be in a hurry about it.
No it was sarcasm. Which is all the dickish "it's the nanny state gone mad" people deserve.
Health and safety rules are there because of history. Ignore history and you become an idiot.
13 to 15 deaths due to inattentive drivers will not be stopped by having a rear view camera.
If you RTFA, you'd see that actually it's 210 deaths and 15,000 injuries per year from backup-accidents. They've already discounted that down to 13-15 lives and 1,125 injuries saved from the rule.
In other words they are saying that having mandatory cameras will prevent about 7% of reversing accidents. Which seems modest enough.
Yes, it was much better in the nineteenth century when government was less invasive in people's lives, and heroic private sector food manufacturers used to pad out food with poisons and excrement.
http://www.victorianweb.org/sc...
Just this weekend I nearly got into an accident when my new car's 'anti-skid' protection switched on unexpectedly.....
It switched on because you'd already started skidding. You'd lost it already. The anti-skid protection probably saved you from the actual accident you would have had otherwise.
Car manufacturer's compete on the base price of vehicles, then cash in by overpricing options. By making rear-view cameras a standard fitting it ensures you will be getting it at a competitive price.
So why would you do that? You car is already fitted with rear view mirrors. Do you neglect to look to either side when backing out because your focus is fixed on them?
No, I'm using Nate Silver as an example of a real statistician successfully using models for prediction in a way that you say is wrong.
And he didn't just predict an election. He predicted every state correctly at the last election, and 49 out of 50 states correctly at the previous election.
He's published a book about using modelling for prediction. You should read it. It even has a section on predicting global warming, and absolutely underlines the problems in doing that. But his criticisms come from knowledge of using modelling for prediction. Yours clearly don't.
It is also forever interesting that people are forever willing to move the goalposts for the number of years required for the weather to be climate as the weather refuses to cooperate with their prior conceptions of that the climate ought to be doing.
This is a lie. I've been discussing climate change for more than 20 years, and climate has always been weather over a large area averaged over at least 30 years.
Sadly, the climate scientists who wrote AR5 do not agree with you.
Sadly your interpretation of AR5 is not the same thing as AR5, let alone the scientists who wrote AR5.
Let me ask you a question. If we were looking at the predictions of 36 distinct density functional theory implementations in physics compared to measured spectroscopy results, would you average the 36 results and compare the mean as some sort of reliable predictor of the data, especially when some of the computations were run on PCs using matlab and represented only 20 hours of total compute time and others were run with enormous bases on huge clusters and represented 20,000 hours of compute time?
What Nate Silver would do is bias them for how well they have so far performed. At the beginning of such an exercise, you'd have to value them equally. Doing anything else would be bringing subjectivity into it.
Of course you have no better answer for that you'd do. But having seen you cherry pick data, I know what you would do. You'd bias towards the models that give you the result you want.
Something to think about while you ponder Bayesian statistics and the fact that accumulating data continuously falsifies theories or forces reconsideration of their priors -- it doesn't happen all at once after thirty years.
Gibberish. I never said anything about waiting 30 years. Each year always brings a new annual point on the climate chart. The latest one being the average of 1984-2014.
Bastards eh! Look how much harm the mandatory fitting of seat-belts and air bags has already done to you and your children. Will the government's viciousness never stop.
A backup camera will run you around $500-600 at a post-manufacturer upfitter.
Most of those costs is labour. Fitting an accessory to a car after manufacture takes lots of work. Fitting it during manufacture as a standard part takes little work.
Do you find yourself to be similarly distracted by rear view mirrors?
I don't know about you, but I find that rear view mirrors are a useful tool to look what's behind me. But I'm aware of what areas they don't cover, and physically look round to cover some of those areas. And I'm aware of those areas that aren't covered by either.
Why do you think rear view cameras are fundamentally different and negative when mirrors are incredibly useful and save lives?
Since I'm one of the haves, you can get stuffed.
At last a morsel of honesty from a denier.
No, I read the whole report having got word before it showed up here.
Oh really? How long did it take you?
15 years, or even 75 years, isn't climate... that is weather...
The average of 15 years isn't usually considered to be climate. The average of 75 years certainly is climate.
The conventional period for climate is the average of at least 30 years weather.
The models and arguments are lost on me because I simply don't believe the data set is good enough to make any kind of prediction.
No, they are lost on you because you like to fly helicopters.
The truth is, the alarmist nazis hate using 97-98 as a start point, but *love* it as an end point.
Everyone likes "the latest year we have data for" as an end point. So of course during 1999, 1998 will have been used as an end point. And it's status as an outlier will have been less obvious then.
For sure, climate scientists didn't continue using 1998 as an end point when further years data was available.
The dishonesty comes in selecting an outlier as a start point. Because for sure there is plenty of data that comes before 1998, and including it only makes the picture more informative, not less.
We're in a year when using 1998 as a start point almost sounds credible as it's a semi round 15 years ago. However deniers were also using it when it was 11, 12, 13, 14 years ago. For which there can be no defense from it being plain dishonesty.
Basically they say "We have no defensible reason to think that the average of all of the climate models in CMIP5 has the slightest actual meaning, and we have excellent reasons not to just take the numerical average of their individual mean predictions with equal weight and to prune out the failing models, but we're going present the numerical average of all of the models, including the ones that are overtly failing, anyway".
And that's a pretty accurate description of how Nate Silver accurately predicted 49 states in the 2008 general election and 50 states in the 2012 general election.
If it seems wrong to you, then that only means that you know less about using models to predict than Nate Silver and the AR5 team.
You are responding to the fact that cherry picking a period of weather and claiming it is dishonest, by selecting two more short periods of weather for charting?
Here's HADCRUT4:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
Climate is 30 years of weather averaged. Although this is still a chart of weather, you can still see clearly that if you averaged over 30 years to get climate, then the trend would be up.
It's quite amusing how deniers disowned Muller AFTER the publication of BEST. Before the publication, he was their knight in shining armour.
And so on....
Lets list some more, because it's the same type of people that are denying AGW now, that denied all these in the past:
Smoking is carcinogenic.
Secondary smoking is carcinogenic.
Asbestos causes lung disease.
Evolution.
The hole in the ozone layer.
That strictly controlling CFCs would remedy the hole in the ozone layer.